What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point) Responses Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action. Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action. Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches. Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches. Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power. Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power. Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved. Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is that judicial restraint means the court takes a more limited role and defers to the other branches of government, while judicial activism means the court takes a more active role and actively reviews and potentially overturns government actions.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is that judicial restraint means the court does not get involved, while judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is that judicial restraint means the court does not get involved, while judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
To understand this contrast, it is important to have a basic understanding of these concepts:
1. Judicial Restraint: This refers to a philosophy where judges believe that they should generally defer to the decisions made by the elected branches of government (such as the legislative and executive branches). Judges who practice judicial restraint tend to interpret the Constitution narrowly and avoid making sweeping policy decisions. They believe that the court's role is primarily to interpret laws, rather than create or change them.
2. Judicial Activism: On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a philosophy where judges believe that the courts should actively interpret the Constitution and laws in order to correct perceived injustices and promote social change. Activist judges are more likely to interpret the Constitution broadly and use their power to shape public policy. They may be more willing to strike down laws or take positions that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Based on these definitions, the contrast can be summarized as follows:
- Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved: This means that judges practicing judicial restraint are less likely to interfere with the decisions and actions of the elected branches of government unless they clearly violate the Constitution.
- Judicial activism means the court reviews the action: In contrast, judges practicing judicial activism are more likely to review and potentially challenge the decisions and actions of the elected branches of government if they believe that they infringe upon individual rights or values protected by the Constitution.
It is important to note that these terms can sometimes be subjective, and judges may exhibit elements of both philosophies to varying degrees in different cases. Furthermore, the balance between judicial restraint and activism can shift over time as different judges are appointed to the Supreme Court.